People v. Vaughn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vaughn

16 A.D.3d 216, 790 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 216 (People v. Vaughn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Vaughn, 16 A.D.3d 216, 790 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered April 30, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion when, prior to defendant taking the stand, it modified its original Sandoval ruling in light of its further evaluation of the credibility issues to be raised by defendant’s proposed testimony (see People v Ramos, 255 AD2d 203 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 856 [1999]). The modified ruling was appropriate (see generally People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]), and it did not undermine defendant’s justification defense or deprive him of a fair trial. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered April 30, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion when, prior to defendant taking the stand, it modified its original Sandoval ruling in light of its further evaluation of the credibility issues to be raised by defendant’s proposed testimony (see People v Ramos, 255 AD2d 203 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 856 [1999]). The modified ruling was appropriate (see generally People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]), and it did not undermine defendant’s justification defense or deprive him of a fair trial. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 216, 790 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vaughn-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack